Transcript The Capabilities Approach and Community Psychology in the

VIII COLLOQUIO SCIENTIFICO SULL’IMPRESA SOCIALE
PAPER
ISBN 978-88-909832-0-7
THE CAPABILITY APPROACH AND COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY IN THE
PURSUIT OF WELL-BEING AS JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THE ROLE OF NON PROFIT SECTOR
Caterina Arcidiacono
Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici, Università degli Studi di Napoli “Federico II”
Salvatore Di Martino
Dipartimento di Scienze Politiche, Università degli Studi di Napoli “Federico II”
Federica D’Isanto
Dipartimento di Scienze Politiche, Università degli Studi di Napoli “Federico II”
paper presentato in occasione di
Colloquio scientifico sull’impresa sociale, 23-34 maggio 2014
Dipartimento di Economia, Università degli Studi di Perugia
UNIVERSITA’
DEGLI STUDI
DI PERUGIA
Abstract
In “Development as Freedom”, Amartya Sen affirms that we may not notice the protective power of
democracy in giving people the chance to express their capabilities until a particular problem arises.
However, when things go wrong the absence of a system that provides justice for everybody can loom
extremely large and put a considerable strain on people’s lives (Sen, 1999). In this paper we set out to
analyze the extent to which the absence of what Sen defines a “system of justice” plus a fair and equitable
allotment as well as distribution of resources can affects people’s well-being. Richard Wilkinson and Kate
Pickett (2009) have made a remarkable case on this account when they showed that in most developed
Countries across the world an unfair distribution of the richness, which is mainly expressed by the gap that
separates the rich from the poor, wreaks havoc on people’s well-being However, the connection between
justice, equity and well-being has been, despite many evidences such as the one just mentioned, largely
overlooked so far. In terms of well-being, researchers rarely, if ever, invoke justice and the equitable
allotment and distribution of resources in their explanations. In most cases, culture, age, marriage, social
support, unemployment and adaptation figure prominently on the list of well-being predictors (e.g.
Fredrickson 2009; Lyubomirsky 2008; Seligman 2002, 2011). And yet, although it might be true that some
people, endowed with intelligence and empathy, can, with appropriate support, overcome adversity, they
remain nonetheless a minority (Prilleltensky, Nelson & Peirson, 2001). For the vast majority of those who
face oppression and injustice, however, life becomes a constant struggle (Nelson & Prilleltensky, 2010),
which is why it is so surprising that psychologists have not yet explored in depth the connection between
fairness and wellness. As we are well aware of, this is not the case in other disciplines such as political
economy (Sen 2009), and political philosophy (Nussbaum 2006).
This is the reason why, in this paper, we will refer both to the Capabilities Approach and Community
Psychology Approach. Specifically, by integrating Amartya Sen’s and Marta Nussbaum’s Capabilities
Approach with the Ecological model proposed by Isaac Prilleltensky, we hold that individuals, groups,
communities and society at large are all deeply intertwined with one another; hence, individual and social
well-being are intrinsically linked with the promotion and achievement of underlying human necessities,
such as freedom, equity, environmental respect, equality, and social justice for everyone. In fact, consistent
with Isaac Prilleltensky’s ecological vision, well-being is understood as a positive state of affairs brought
about by the simultaneous and balanced satisfaction of diverse objective and subjective needs of
individuals, relationships, organizations and communities (Prilleltensky, 2012). Thus, we ground our
discussion on a novel vision of well-being that is a multi-faceted and complex construct linked to manifold
levels of analysis (Arcidiacono, 2013; Di Martino 2013). The vision we set out to propose shows a new
understanding of this phenomenon, which is not merely the outcome of personal efforts and achievements
but is also the fruit of the interrelations between numerous other factors, (equity and justice being at the
top of them) which have thus far seldom been connected to this concept.
Finally the aim of the paper is to analyze the role of third sector inside the society in term of contribution to
well-being and quality of life.
Keywords: justice, critical community psychology, equity, social enterprises
2
1. Introduction
The burgeoning interest placed on well-being in recent years has allowed many definitions and
conceptualizations of this phenomenon to gain a certain currency and also to spread throughout the
scientific literature. Whereas many of them are overly based on an individualistic perspective (Seligman,
2012, Keyes, 2007, Lyubomirsky 2008; Diener et al., 2009) others are particularly focused on publicoriented policy making (Veenhoven, 2007, Layard, 2005, Bok, 2010).
In this article, consistent with Isaac Prilleltensky’s ecological vision, well-being is understood instead as a
positive state of affairs, brought about by the simultaneous and balanced satisfaction of diverse objective
and subjective needs of individuals, relationships, organizations, and communities (Prilleltensky, 2012).
Thus, the idea that we put forth here is that well-being is a multi-faceted and complex construct linked to
manifold levels of analysis. Contrary to Diener’s standpoint - namely, that people have well-being only
when they believe that their life is going well, regardless of whether that life has pleasure, material
comfort, a sense of meaning, or any other feature that has been specified as essential for well-being
(Diener at al., 2009) - we hold that objective indicators of well-being can actually make a great deal of
difference when it comes to assess the way someone is leading his/her life.
On the whole, the distinction between subjective and objective indicators of well-being – as well as the
acceptance of their joint importance - matters especially when it comes to policy making. Indeed, if we
prioritise the one or the other we are apt to misconstrue the quality of someone’s life: very happy people
can be living in awful conditions that are morally unacceptable while others may seem to have excellent
objective conditions but if they are really miserable their lives aren’t going very well (Thin, 2012). Amartya
Sen has made this point very clear in volumes as “The idea of Justice” and “Development as Freedom”
when he showed the limit of the Utilitarian approach. But this has also a value when we try to implement
well-being oriented strategies of research and action. “Paradoxically”, Prilleltensky claims “strategies that
concentrate exclusively on personal well-being undermine well-being because they do not support the
infrastructure that enhances well-being itself. This has been a major gap in previous efforts to sustain
individual well-being through strictly psychological means such as cognitive reframing, positive thinking,
information sharing, and skill building” (Prilleltensky, 2005 a). Being such a complex and multidimensional
construct, for well-being to be better understood it is therefore necessary to explore its main features,
starting exactly from the distinction between its subjective and objective indicators.
Again, the distinction provided by Isaac Prilleltensky between subjective and objective indicators of wellbeing, as shown in the table below, can be deemed to be a useful tool for orienting our understanding of
this phenomenon. Moreover, with reference to an ecological standpoint, the table shows their declination
along a path that goes from the personal to communal level while putting them in relation to different
features such as Economic, Physical, Occupational, Psychological, Community, and Interpersonal
(Prilleltensky, 2012).
Arguably, this taxonomy can by no means be deemed exhaustive since many other domains are liable to
affect people’s lives. On this account, Prilleltensky and colleagues have recently carried out a research
activity aimed at synthesizing the central domains of well-being. Their joint efforts have yielded to
conceptualizing six domains of well-being, which can be summarized in the acronym COPPE, which stands
for Interpersonal, Community, Occupational, Psychological, Physical, and Economic well-being (Prilleltensky
et al., 2013).
3
4
Given the distinction between subjective and objectives indicators of well-being we can now turn our
attention to how Prilleltensky describes well-being’s components.
According to Prilleltensky well-being consists of (a) sites, (b) signs, (c) sources, and (d) strategies. There are
three primary sites of well-being (personal, relational, and collective), each of which has specific signs or
manifestations, sources or determinants, and strategies. (Prilleltensky, 2005 b).
Sites refer to the location of well-being. Here we concern ourselves with ‘‘where’’ well-being is situated.
While we can distinguish among the well-being of a person, a relationship, or a community, they are highly
interdependent.
5
By signs we refer to manifestations or expressions of well-being at the different sites we mentioned above.
Signs answer the question ‘‘how do I know that this site is experiencing well-being?’’
Each one of the sites of well-being and its corresponding signs has particular sources or groups of
determinants.
In this light, the key to successful strategies to promote well-being is that they must be specific enough to
address each one of the sites, signs, and respective sources of well-being at the same time.
To conclude, we can integrate sites, signs, sources, and strategies in the following formulation: The wellbeing of a site is reflected in a particular sign, which derives from a particular source and is promoted by a
certain strategy. (Prilleltensky, 2005 a)
2. Well-being as justice
In “Development as Freedom” Amartya Sen affirms that we might not notice the protective power of
democracy in giving people the chance to express their capabilities until no particular problem arise. But
when things go wrong – as in the classical example of famines – the absence of a system that provides
justice for everybody can loom extremely large and put a considerable strain on people’s lives (Sen, 1999).
Transposing this concept from political economics to psychology, we notice that a preoccupation with intrapsychic dynamics and a misplaced emphasis on resilience have led researchers such as Seligman (2002) to
ignore contextual factors in well-being, such as income, education, and opportunities in life (Ehrenreich,
2009). In other words, a certain branch of psychology maintains that no matter what are the external
conditions or the context in which we live as long as we lever on our inner strength to enhance our wellbeing. This is one of the reasons why Positive Psychology has provided so many tools, techniques, and
practices geared to improve flow, character strengths, meaning, and the like (Frederickson,.2009; Seligman,
Peterson, 2004; Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, Schkade, 2005), while almost completely ignoring the paramount
presence of the surrounding environment and its effect on the latter. In dealing with the phenomenon of
post-traumatic growth Seligman makes almost the case that anybody, once provided with the right
psychological endorsement, can not only overcome their personal difficulty but even gain a new sense of
life (Seligman, 2011). Incidentally, this beg the question “What if someone’s level of well-being does not
6
improve despite the use of these so valuable instruments”. It is possible to think that the weight of a failed
happiness must be shouldered by the person himself. This is what Barbara Held defined The Tyranny of the
Positive Attitude (Held, 2004). Although it is quite true that human mind has great capacity for adaptation,
and the human spirit has great endurance, it is nonetheless a mistake to presume that most individuals can
overcome adversity unscathed, or that external factors can be overcome by internal pirouettes of the mind.
There is no question that some people, endowed with intelligence and empathy can, with appropriate
supports, overcome adversity, but they remain a minority (Prilleltensky, Nelson, & Peirson, 2001). For the
vast majority who face oppression and injustice, life becomes a constant struggle (Nelson & Prilleltensky,
2010), which is why it is so surprising that psychologists have not explored in depth yet the connection
between fairness and wellness. Researchers studying subjective well-being rarely if ever invoke justice in
their explanations. In most cases, culture, age, marriage, social support, unemployment, and adaptation
figure prominently on the list of well-being predictors; justice, however, does not (e.g., Fredrickson 2009;
Lyubomirsky 2008; Seligman 2002, 2011). This is not the case in other disciplines such as political economy
(Sen 2009), and political philosophy (Nussbaum 2006), ut in psychology and behavioural economics justice
is conspicuously absent. (Prilleltensky, 2012).
However the Capabilities Approach has mainly been discussed within the economic filed and political
philosophy. When we try to apply the concept of capabilities to a well-being enhancement-aimed strategy
we engage with methodological and theoretical issues (Zimmermann, 2006). Moreover, although the
Capabilities Approach can serve as an important constituent for a theory of justice, as Sen (1995, p. 268;
2004a, p. 337) argues, this does not amount to a theory of justice. Sen stresses that a theory of justice must
include both aggregative considerations as well as distributive ones, whereas the capability approach does
not specify an aggregative principle. Moreover, a theory of justice also requires procedural components,
such as the principle of non-discrimination, which the capability approach is not designed to deliver.
(Robeyns, 2005).
A good way to overcome these limits could be to refer again to Prilleltensky and, specifically, to his theory
of justice. Paralleling to the afore-mentioned definition of well-being, Prilleltensy’s approach to justice is
also ecological. According to this author groups, organizations, communities and nations should be part of
the scope of distributive and procedural justice. Thus, it is not sufficient to think about his or her due in the
definition of distributive justice. We need to include their due, in the case of other human or animal
groups, or its due in the case of institutions, nations, and the planet. We owe respect to people, animals,
communities, and the earth. This leads us
to specific subtypes of justice. (Prilleltensky, 2012). This vision is particularly close to Martha Nussbaum’s,
who claimed more than once the importance to focus the Capabilities approach not only people, but to
animal and the surrounding environment (Nussbaum, 2011).
Figure 3 depicts two continua: one of justice and one of well-being. From right to left, conditions of justice
and wellness improve across both continua. Each one of the four points at the bottom is connected to a
point at the top through a series of psychological and social dynamics. Different conditions of justice
predispose different conditions of wellness. It is plain that in an Optimal Condition it is easier to thrive
whereas in a Persisting Condition of Injustice it is more likely to experience oppression, and helplessness.
This is not to say that people cannot activate their agency to transform conditions of injustice to conditions
of justice and improved wellness. People can move from right to left, from suffering to thriving. Conditions
7
of justice predispose, but do not fatalistically determine wellness outcomes forever. Through a combination
of collective agency and changing social and political circumstances, people move from oppression to
liberation and thriving. (Prilleltensky, 2013). It is to see, looking at the picture, the sharp contrast between
Prilleltensky’s vision of well-being and Martin Seligman’s flourish theory, only to give an example out of
many. Perhaps it is no accident that Prilleltensky prefers to opt for the term thriving instead of flourishing.
In Sen’s and Nussbaum’s view, enhancing development means mainly to remove the obstacles that stand in
the way of human thriving and, at the same time, to promote positive circumstance that enable people to
do what they are able to do and to be.
However, removing obstacles and promoting positive circumstances it is not enough. We also need to
prevent risks that might interfere with human development. As Amartya Sen claims in “Development as
freedom” : “The challenge of development include both the elimination of persistent, endemic, deprivation
and the prevention of sudden, severe destitution. (Sen…). In that sense, Community Psychology is very
close to this vision since its concern in promoting well-being through preventing causes of discomfort to
arise (Dalton et al, 2001, Prilleltensky, 2012)
8
4. Sen-Naussbaum perspective in a wellbeing definition. The role on non profit sector
Sen’s theory says that “life consists in a whole of functionings, characterized by states of being and states of
doing”. The relevant functionings can vary from the very elementary - such as not being deprived of food,
being healthy, preventing morbidity and premature death - to more complex states such as being happy or
being integrated in the social community1.
In his opinion, everyone implements functionings among those that are actually accessible to him and so he
chooses the kind of life that he would like to live. The notion of capabilities is linked to the notion of
functioning. The term of “capabilities” refers to “the capability of the individual to acquire subjectively
valued functionings”. Therefore, we can say that according to Sen and his school, functionings concretely
acquired by a person represent a space’s subset of available capabilities.
As far as the existence is concerned, do we have to value functionings or capabilities in equal opportunity’s
conditions? In Sen’s opinion there’s no doubt that we have to consider capabilities. In one of his essays, he
talks about these problems, the Nobel Prize for Economy of 1977 fixes his attention in a case of two
persons that suffer from hunger. The first because is indigent and he hasn’t got the resources to buy food
while the other although, having resources required to buy the food, he chooses to strike in order to
defend his values because he thinks they are necessary or because they dictated by his religion. An
assessment of the previous situation that focuses attention of functionings, leads to believe that the two
agents are in the same situation, however an assessment that takes as a reference point the space of
capabilities, considers that the situation of the first person is certainly worse.
Implications in policy terms are obvious. If there are scarce resources to be allocated, the economic policy
should be not directed towards someone who has chosen not to eat, but to someone who is unable to do
it, due to his space of functionings.
Naturally, it is not easy take information from people about their opportunities. In practice it is difficult to
restore the agent’s opportunities/potentials set considering methodological and applied problems that
should be addressed and overcome: from a methodological point of view, it is important to take into
account the role of cultural traditions to convert a potential functioning in a concrete functioning, then
regarding to application problems for example which method to follow to determine in concrete the
capabilities of people (as interviews, objective observation, etc…). It is also possible to use information
derived from agents’ subjective perception about the type of choices that would be possible to do, and the
conditions in which they are satisfactory. The last type of data is easier to be collected, but create trouble,
difficulties, as highlighted by Sen, to confuse objective and subjective perspective.
In Martha Nussbaum opinion, there are “capabilities” between Welfarism and Platonism point of view.
Welfarism focus on an individual’s perspective; the choice depends on individual preferences to renounce
or not, to any “public” intervention: if a women accepts violations to their rights, the problem doesn’t exist
anymore. Platonism deduces from constructed categories such as “justice”, the interventions to be carried
1
Cfr. l’ampia bibliografia di SEN: SEN A., Globalizzazione e libertà, Mondadori, 2002; SEN A., Lo sviluppo è libertà, Mondadori
2000; SEN A., La libertà individuale come impegno sociale, Laterza, 1997; SEN A., Identità e violenza, Laterza, 2006; SEN A., Il
tenore di vita, Marsilio, 1993; SEN A., La povertà genera violenza?, Il Sole 24 Ore, 2007; SEN A., La democrazia degli altri,
Mondadori, 2004.
9
out, regardless of the preferences of individuals2.. The writer focuses also on “informed wishes”. Her idea,
at the beginning, is presented as a development of Sen’s, on how she finds mediation between Platonism
and Welfarism that her idea becomes Senian, in the justification that she gives in terms of life satisfaction3
within of rights violation situation that makes Senian the argument. The space of opportunities is reduced
for people who accept violence, freedom privations and discrimination.
It is not easy to reconstruct those set for different agents because of methodological and practical
problems that we have to overcome for defining an objective criteria in order to build the set of capability.
So that we can utilize the subjective perception of the situation that agents reveal in affirmations about
their satisfaction or the actual possibility to choose. As Sen emphasis in his recent essays, there is a relevant
difference between the objective perspective of capability approach and the subjective point of view
emphasised in the recent stream of literature on happiness, however the same Nobel Prize’s winner
considers the exchange between those two schools in a positive way. According Sen theory of capabilities
approach and Prilleltensky theory of wellbeing as justice and equity, it is interesting to understand if
nonprofit organizations play a crucial game in expanding capabilities and improving quality of life of an
individual (D’Isanto, Fuscaldo, Musella 2013).
The reason why investigate in such type of organizations is because these organizations are inspired by
principles of democracy and equity.
Furthermore the third sector organizations have long been associated with the provision of human services
that contribute to well-being and the quality of life. In fact this role of the sector is a principal focus of what
has long been the dominant economic theory of the third sector, which views the existence of this sector as
resulting from a demand for services that neither the market nor government can provide due to inherent
failures of these alternatives institutions- i.e., the “free rider” problem in the case of markets and the need
for majority support in the case of governments (Hansmann, 1980; Weisbrod, 1977). This kind of impact
has received new attention, however, as consequence of the recent Stiglitz report commissioned by French
President Sarkosy (Stiglitz, Sen, Fitoussi, 2009). This report emphasized the need to “shift emphasis from
measuring economic production to measuring people‘s well- being”, and called attention particularly to
the role that third sector institutions play as providers of collective and individual service such as security,
health, education, culture and recreation as well as civic engagement and social capital. But well-being
involves more than concrete services. It also includes subjective factors, such as feeling of security, equity,
sense of well-being, confidence, and a sense of belonging (Cummins, 2000), all of wich have also been
associated with third sector organizations. Impact assessment related to well-being and life-quality must
therefore be concerned with both of these dimensions.
The quality of life, applying as interpretative keys the teachings of Sen and Nussbaum, depends on
freedom or not of the choices, and the space of capabilities affordable to an individual, and how much of
choice for an individual is under freedom or not.
2
3
NUSSBAUM M. C., “Diventare persone. Donne e universalità dei diritti”, Il Mulino, 2001.
NUSSBAUM, M. C. and AMARTIA S, eds., “The Quality of Life” Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993Oaxaca, R. L., “Male-Female Wage
Differentials in Urban Labor Markets”, International Economic Review 14(3): 693-709, 1973
10
Set of
capabilities
wellbeing
RestrictedSpace
Unfredom
choice
This figure take into account the two hypothesis people can move in a blue space (with a wide set
opportunities of choices) and people can move in a green space (restricted space of choice). Any kind of
choice taken inside the restricted space is an unfreedom choice. The “wellbeing” can be defined as the
agency ( the be active agent in aprocess) to move in the wide blue space in which is possible to make choice
under freedom
According Senian perspective we should also evaluate the preferences of the economic agents, to examine
the set of opportunity that different agents face towards. In other words, it would deal with the
reconstruction of the all set of capabilities (in the sense of the all set of possible functioning among which
he/she have to choose).
Biography
Bok, D., 2010. The politics of happiness: What governments can learn from the new research on well-being.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Cumminis, R.A. 2000. Objective and subjective quality of life: an interactive model. Social Indicators
Research 52,55-72.
Dalton, J.H., Elias, M.J., Wandersman, A., 2001. Community Psychology: Linking Individuals and
Communities. Stamford, CT: Wadsworth.
Diener, E., Lucas, R., Schimmack, U., Helliwell, J., 2009. Well-being for Public Policy. New York: Oxford
University Press.
11
D’Isanto F., Fuscaldo M., Musella M., 2013. La misura dello scarring effect nelle cooperative sociali italiane,
Rivista online Impresa Sociale www.rivistaimpresasociale.it pubblicata da Iris Network (ISSN 2282-1694).
Ehrenreich, B., 2009. Bright sided: How the relentless promotion of positive thinking has undermined
America. New York: Holt and Company.
Fredrickson, B., 2009. Positivity. New York: Crown Publishers.
Hansmann, H. 1980. The role of non-profit enterprise. Yale Law Journal 89(2), 835-898.
Held, B.S., 2004. The Negative Side of Positive Psychology. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 44( 9), 9-46.
Keyes, C., 2007. Promoting and protecting mental health as flourishing. American Psychologist, 62(2), 95–
108.
Layard, R. 2005. Happiness: Lesson from A New Science. London: Penguin Group.
Lyubomirsky, S., 2008. The how of happiness: A scientific approach to getting the life you want. New York:
Penguin Press.
Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon K.M., Schkade D., 2005. Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable
change, UC Riverside Previously Published Works, UC Riverside.
Nussbaum, M. 2011. Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. Harvard University Press.
Prilleltensky, I., 2012. Wellness without fairness: The missing link in psychology. South African Journal of
Psychology, 43(2), 147–155.
Prilleltensky, I., 2005. Promoting well-being: Time for a paradigm shift in health and human services.
Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 33 (Suppl 66): 53–60.
Prilleltensky, I., Dietz, S., Prilleltensky, O., Rubenstein, C., Myers, N., Jing, Y., McMahon, A., 2013. Assessing
multidimensional well-being: Development and validation of the I COPPE Scale. Unpublished manuscript.
Prilleltensky, I., Nelson, G., Peirson, L., 2001. The role of power and control in children’s lives: An ecological
analysis of pathways towards wellness, resilience, and problems. Journal of Community and Applied Social
Psychology, 11, 143–158.
Prilleltensky, I., Nelson, G., 2002. Doing psychology critically: Making a difference in diverse settings. New
York: Palgrave.
Robeyns, I., 2005. The Capability Approach: a theoretical survey. Journal of Human Development, 6(1), 93114.
Seligman, M.E.P., 2011. Flourish: A Visionary New Understand of Happiness and Well-Being. New York: Free
Press
Seligman, M.E.P., 2004. Character Strength and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification, New York: Oxford
University Press.
12
Sen, A., 2009. The idea of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sen, A., 1999. Development as Freedom. New York: Oxford University Press.
Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., Fitoussi, J.-P 2009. Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic
Perfomance and Social Progress Retrived from www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr
Veenhoven, R., 2007. ‘Subjective measures of well-being ’. In: McGillivray M., ed. Human well-being:
Concept and measurement. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 214–239.
Zimmermann, B., 2006. Pragmatism and the Capability Approach Challenges in Social Theory and Empirical
Research. European Journal of Social Theory, 9(4), 467-484.
Weisbrod, B.A. 1977 . The Voluntary Nonprofit Sector, an Economic Analysis. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath.
13